<div dir="ltr">Also, one may see that she could have been excluded for her lack of whiteness. <div><br></div><div>Example, the use of the word to illustrate an example is non-prohibitive for a white person? Because they diminished it's power somehow in a politically charged discussion? </div>

<div><br></div><div>If the power of the word is inherent, regardless of context then how can it be written or scripted. The OP would be excluded too, as the "Pejorative" function of the word is inherently absent from the conversation. . . . it's just the use of the word which is a problem. This is akin to allowing whites to use words in the state of exception, a functional homosacar of semiotic discourse. </div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">There is a difference between appropriation and
reappropriation. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">To
me, both seem potentially liberating, depending. I also think some white people
use Black idioms because they LOVE those idioms. As a person of Jewish descent,
i'm not offended that everybody eats bagels.</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">“Now wiggers are
reappropirating it.” It depends if this person classifies herself as a wigger,
white individual or even black individual. There is no defining characteristic
until we ask the individual who uttered the words how they identify and why
they identify. We cannot play essentialism when there is a clear intersectional
becoming of identity. How can we say she is black or white, African American or
Anglo American? Race goes well beyond skin color. We don’t know which community she identifies
with or even if she refuses identification all together. We also don’t know if
she fluidly moves about in her identity between cultures. </span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">It
really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group around
identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we are to delve
into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life circumstances
and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of exclusion. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">--Meaning,
we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from Noisebridge, when she
used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm was intended.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">I
agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara (she's not
very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that she was not
trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask. Asking might
be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">Take
for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not identify with
conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different pronoun to
describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a dominant cultural
narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with relation to their body.</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">--Meaning,
if a person rejects social stereotypes about their gender, the person may
try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking people to
use "they" instead of "he" or "she".</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Yes,
they might. I agree with and practice rejection of gender stereotypes that
don't fit me. But, through living, not through syllables (hey, that's just
me).</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">The point I am making is
that racial identity is constructed in sex and gender. Conflated archetypes
mean a becoming of a “being” and in the matrix of archetypes that constructs
one’s identity. I’m trying to show the immediate parallels between the
excluder’s implosions of gender through the subscription to an “E” pronoun to
the potential for the implosion [or partial] of the exclusions’ race. If gender
is fluid, then why isn’t race? They are both attempts to construct binary
oppositions that make dominance possible (e.g. he/she and black/white). These
dichotomies render impossible the idea that race and gender are not discrete,
but fluid and reflexive understandings of self within the context of one’s
experience.</span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">The
same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in their own
whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave their whiteness in
an alternative racial narrative.</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">No, what I’m saying is
that race is fluid as is gender. There needs to be a conversation of
intersectionality here that is largely being ignored. That skin color may not
determine an individual’s race, and consequently this individual may be
reappropriating the term within the identity this individual chooses to live
in. Consequently, this is more reason to
engage in dialogue about the identities present in this argument. </span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">It
comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and if the
instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation entrenched in an
alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be perceived. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">--what
matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Having
spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to liberate others
through laughter.</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">Appropriation is an
over identification with the symptomology of oppression. It makes possible the
taking of the word and a translation of the power of oppression vis-à-vis its
use by the oppressed or individuals who identify with the oppressed. Now, I’m
suspectful of the liberation ideology because it would seem strange within your
iteration of her identity. . . . and the fact that she likely is not going to
liberate a class of people via a small joke between her and someone who doesn’t
identify with any gender pronouns . . . .</span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">It’s really just a
discourse that plays or diminishes power in a space.</span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Now,
if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">Perceptual
appropriation is the understanding that this person only identifies as white,
has had privilege because of her whiteness and is using a term, which can only
be used in an appropriative way because of that privilege. It excludes the
understanding that this person may have an aspect or even identify with
blackness or an alternative African American identity which allows her to
reapproraite the word in a context that actually upheaves oppression, by taking
the dominating power out of the word.</span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">...reappropration
should not exist for those who are not entirely classified by essentialist
functions within a social space. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">And
there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed to use
the N word"?</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">No, what I’m saying is
that if we are to exclude off of this discourse, it could be used to justify
the exclusion of others who cannot specifically identify in essentialist terms
with a particular race. Being part of is not whole or ascribing to is not
whole, both situations under this exclusionary framework disables alterity and
refocuses power by prohibiting the subaltern from engaging in speech. It
utterly destroys the agency of the Other discursively, rendering them voiceless
absent exclusion.</span></p><div>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-left:1in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(80,0,80)">One
cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of policing of
boundaries.</span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">Any individual who
exists as a mixed race individual, ascribes to alternative cultural ways of
knowing, or implodes categorical understandings of identity. Policing of
boundaries is as intersectional as physical policing. The parallels and
disparities exist for both. Imagine the world where more people of a certain
class, race, identified race, gender, identified gender, identifying implosion
get caught up in policing. Because these individuals do not concretely fit
within categorical frameworks, they are lead to be marginalized. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(75,172,198)">If the perception of
identity functions in this fashion, then we are very wrong to exclude on this
basis of speech. </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="#4bacc6" face="Arial">Clearly, this
individual has embarked on minstrelization. Who is to say this individual can’t
do this? Regardless, I don’t think this individual should have to justify their
identity. It’s akin to asking a mixed person “what is your racial decent.”
Translation: 'I don’t know who you are, why you act the way you do, and I must
know about it because I wouldn’t understand your identity without such a </font><font color="#4bacc6" face="Arial">justification</font><font color="#4bacc6" face="Arial">.'</font></p>

<div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"></div></blockquote>
<div></div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of exclusion. </div>

</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>--Meaning, we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from Noisebridge, when she used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm was intended. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara (she's not very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that she was not trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask. Asking might be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door. </div>

<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not identify with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different pronoun to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a dominant cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with relation to their body.</div>

</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>--Meaning, if a person rejects social <span>stereotypes about their gender, the person may try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking people to use "they" instead of "he" or "she". </span></div>

<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Yes, they might. I agree with and practice rejection of gender stereotypes that don't fit me. But, through living, not through syllables (hey, that's just me). </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Conflated"?</div><div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative. </div></div></blockquote>

<div> </div>
</div><div>--i THINK you mean, a white girl might use Black idioms to show she's not a typical white person. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes, she might. </div><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and if the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation entrenched in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be perceived. </div>

</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>--what matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Having spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to liberate others through laughter. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...</div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>--You lost me there. </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>...reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely classified by essentialist functions within a social space. </div></div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>And there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed to use the N word"?</div><div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote cite="http://CALdGTNV6+jZ8-U6DpXAoZBGw6=GoLOrTc8a+QnPfHs9tsGS2RQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of policing of boundaries. </div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div><div>One? Or specificially persons of mixed race?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>